From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Drucker v. Drucker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 2, 1987
134 A.D.2d 232 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 2, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Abrams, J.).


Ordered that the plaintiff's cross appeal is dismissed as academic and abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 13, 1987 is modified, by deleting the provision thereof which directed the defendant to deliver the deed to the marital premises to the plaintiff and substituting therefor the following: "The defendant is to refrain from encumbering the marital premises during the pendency of the action"; as so modified, the order dated April 13, 1987, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the orders dated October 2, 1986, and January 7, 1987, respectively, are affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

Ordinarily, appeals from orders granting pendente lite relief are not favored inasmuch as it is clearly more expedient and less consuming of both judicial time and the time of the attorneys if cases promptly proceed to trial (see, Hildenbiddle v Hildenbiddle, 110 A.D.2d 819, 820; Epstein v. Epstein, 48 A.D.2d 792). Moreover, it was not error for the Supreme Court to take into consideration, in granting pendente lite relief, a stipulation which was entered into on the record by the parties in the Family Court, Suffolk County, several months prior to the commencement of the divorce action (cf., Robinson v. Robinson, 111 A.D.2d 316, appeal dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 613, rearg denied 67 N.Y.2d 647; Jensen v. Jensen, 110 A.D.2d 679; Harrington v Harrington, 103 A.D.2d 356).

However, the court erred when, without a hearing, it directed the defendant to transfer his interest in the marital premises to the plaintiff. In order to insure that the plaintiff's interest in the marital premises (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5]) is completely preserved pending final judgment, the order dated April 13, 1987, has been modified to direct the defendant to refrain from encumbering the marital premises during the pendency of the action. Niehoff, J.P., Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Drucker v. Drucker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 2, 1987
134 A.D.2d 232 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Drucker v. Drucker

Case Details

Full title:TERRY DRUCKER, Respondent-Appellant, v. MELVIN DRUCKER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 2, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 232 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)